Another epic was Jimmy Clark's win in the British GP at Silverstone in 1965. The 1500 c.c. Coventry Climax V8 was notorious for oil consumption. To win the race, Clark coasted at times and even switched off the engine!

Motor racing was never ever "cheap": and naturally, manufacturers used the sport to both promote their brand of automobile and as a test bed, for new concepts. Additionally, various forms of support and assistance was given by automotive industry companies. Oil, fuel, brake linings, tyres, sparking plugs and so on. Yet, these were manufacturers within the automotive industry. Since once again, motor racing was a very useful engineering test bed, as well as excellent publicity.

If there was ever a point when the sport became accessible to normal human beings, it was the 1970's, when you could buy a DFV for relatively little money, build a car from some bits of alloy sheet and fibreglass and persuade some local hero to risk his neck in it. You could turn up for one race and give it a go alongside the regulars.

Nice dream. You should ask the F Atlantic champion, John Nicholson if your concept is sound! And Martin Slater of Lyncar.

In order to build a"Kit Car" F1, you needed a monocoque from such as GP Metalcraft or Arch. Plus a GRP body Skin.

Plus, of course you needed a designer.

And bundles of dosh!

Quote:

It allowed the likes of James Hunt amongst others to find a way in, and the likes of Maki/Lec/Ensign/Amon etc to grace (?) the racetrack

.

Hunt had Teddy Hesketh's money; and even that ran out.

Ensign: well, Mo Nunn had much experience of designing and building race cars. His Ensign F3 (Driven by Riki von Opel) won the European Championship. Dave Purdey (LEC) had Daddie's cash behind him.

Quote:

Despite my fondness for the 1970's, it has to be said that the cars today are the most amazing pieces of engineering we've ever seen, so on that basis, F1 is at its best point ever. Whether it entertains the masses is of no consequence at all, if you follow the original ethos......

And this, surely, is the crux; it has descended into a mass media spectacle; the real aficionados are long lost.

I would suggest the financial pressure of trying to create his Shadows team created incredible time pressure upon Hill and various matters of administrative detail were passed over. He was never a careless man: daring, yes; but careless? No.

Probably Hill had to be back at base the next day: time pressures again.

Interestingly, neither the aircraft nor Hill's life were insured at the time of the accident. The Lloyds underwriters paid out though, as they can do on a matter of principle since intent had existed to renew.

How do I know this? Well, since my wife worked at the time for the underwriters concerned, perhaps?

You know, the problem with the "good old days", in my case the 1970's and in Sideways' the 1930/40/50/60's (take your pick) is that we are all very selective in our memories. Thus, we can criticise at will anyone who disagrees with our particular vision of when F1 was great. We tend to overlook the body count (unforgivable, and never mind the "when men were men" mantra), ignore the processional nature of many, many races (Clark's dominating style being a case in point), and cherry-pick the epic stuff.

Every era has had its spectacular moments, its dull episodes and it's share of tragedy. The ratio changes over the years. As for driver skills? I never came across a case in the 70's or earlier when a team-mate was criticised for being "almost a tenth slower" over a qualifying lap, as if to say he wasn't trying/worthy/capable. Modern F1, in its own way, is as difficult as it ever was, and the drivers are all, without question, operating on a level that few of us can even comprehend.

As for the entertainment, that's the debatable point. But, whatever criticism we level at the modern era, we all fret across the off-season and switch on to watch the first race.......

I know it gets boring after a while, but it keeps coming along. I must be a real oddity, because I don't really have a 'golden age' after which I hanker and I try hard not to be influenced by the mantra of 'F1 is terribly boring these days' that dominates any discussion.

Sometimes, though, I do find it boring. But sometimes it's immensely exciting, and that's not always because there's an infinite amount of overtaking, it's because we like to watch someone nurdle away at 2/10 of a second per lap until they're on the tail of the leader.

What F1 is these days is *different* to how it used to be. And that. in my view, is both inevitable and a good thing.

Many changes in the past have been different just for the sake of being different, and not because it works. Ofcourse, F1, being the special snow flake it is, absolutely can not use the tried and true methods everyone else is using.

So you must forgive me for not really subscribing to the notion that different automatically equals good, or even desirable.

So you must forgive me for not really subscribing to the notion that different automatically equals good, or even desirable.

That's not really what I meant.

If F1 was the same now as it used to be - pick an era of your choice - it most definitely wouldn't be the worldwide spectacle that it is now, even if you view that spectacle as being on the wane.

When I said that being different was an inevitable and good thing, I meant it in terms of not perpetually looking backwards. Yes, changes sometimes happen for changes' sake, and yes they're not always successful, but any sport or entertainment business staying exactly the same when everything else changes around it is doomed.

Look at cricket - The T20 format is hugely successful and popular, yet simultaneously belittled by 'purists'. The existence of T20 does nothing to change the test format or long form matches, but the latter was clung onto in desperation by the ECB as the more 'pure' form of the game even though nobody went to watch it (at club level). It's the same difference with BTCC style racing and endurance sports cars, both have a place and both can be successful but there's a lot of sneering on both sides from the enthusiasts.

Massive generalisation, yes, but I just don't agree with constantly looking backwards. It gives me neck-ache.

cricket T20 is a great example of a sport modernizing over time and conforming to audiences desire for shorter events which happens to also work better for TV audiences.

to his credit imo, BE has been instrumental in conforming F1 into a TV friendly event. yes he did it for money but the benefit of a TV friendly time format meant the sport became so much more accessible then it was in the past and has led to a much greater level of coverage which means i can watch more of it.

in my early days of watching F1, the coverage in Canada was spotty at best and pre internet days meant having to wait for weeks old trade publications to cross the ocean in order for me to learn about the outcomes of races.

flip side is now there are too many races and too many click bait headlines but overall i am happier with the greater level of coverage.

__________________
What shall we use to fill the empty spaces, where waves of hunger roar?
Shall we set out across the sea of faces in search of more and more applause?
Shall we buy a new guitar? Shall we drive a more powerful car?

__________________
What shall we use to fill the empty spaces, where waves of hunger roar?
Shall we set out across the sea of faces in search of more and more applause?
Shall we buy a new guitar? Shall we drive a more powerful car?